The Nature of Nicholas

When we grow up we throw away our old personality we've become too big for like a snake crawls out of its old skin leaving behind a dry slough. So The Nature of Nicholas is a parable about coming of age when the boy should cast away his old, already dead nature to continue on the way into his adult life. Visual design of this drama in demonstrating this idea is absolutely unusual and innovative to the degree of becoming surreal. Don't you know the song "Lose This Skin" by The Clash: "Come with me, I thought he said, but that's not him anymore, he's dead. What's it like to be so free? So free it looks like lost to me. I've got to lose this skin I'm imprisoned in." The Nature of Nicholas is like an elaborate music video to this song.

Be Prepared, you may be confused..but to be honest The Nature Of Nicholas is one of the most creative and innovative films I have watched in a long time. It is an avante-garde surreal masterpiece of reality and hallucination that is like The Wonder Years on acid. It's ideas and themes may be familiar..but the way Erbach deals with them is fantastic. This film may not be for everyone, but for all of you who love to see something new in film making watch it if you can.

Jeff Erbach is a great new Canadian director who is reminiscent in the likes of David Cronenberg, Guy Maddin & David Lynch.

Yes, yes we "get" it Jeff, but let's get a little real here, shall we? When people talk of the pathetic state of English Canadian cinema, this is the film they are referring to. And the director's faux naive "Gee, I really don't know what to say about my own film," pose, is, let's face it, just that. He has thousands of words to explain why he can't or won't explain the creative decisions he has made so, please spare us the "artiste" attitude. You, sir, are no artist. You have a short film idea blown up into a bombastic and obvious turgid wallow in your own psycho sexual confusion - except it doesn't even feel authentic. Take a simple film of sexual ambiguity like, Van Sant's "My Own Private Idaho." A simple tale, borrowed from Shakespeare, about street kids testing, experimenting - and each beat, each frame is charged with all the delicious meaningful ambiguity that escapes this film. What do we get instead? Arbitrariness. Capriciousness. Confusion. Oh, but it's all super clear to the director? Good for him! We all thought that the age of the navel-gazing, nebulous "Canadian" bore- fest films were over, but sadly, the age lives on in Winnepeg. And I put the über-precious, constructivist Guy Maddin in the same bucket - what Nancy-boy, and he's not even gay! This film has such a tiny truth to reveal, such a small-minded, blinkered, pedestrian notion of adolescent sexual confusion, but somehow this misguided auteur and obvious member N.A.M.B.L.A., convinced a whole series of funders to back this project. What happened, Maddin come up dry on that funding go-round? I try to imagine some visitor to Canada checking into his motel room and turning on MPix and stumbling over this over-worked, tepid dross and wondering, "This must be what pass for independent cinema in this country. Poor souls!" And because Astral put money into it, they feel obliged to play it over and over... death by a thousand insipid cuts of mindless nonsense. And you, you reviewers, gushing breathlessly over this misfire - get out much, do you? Out there on the wind-swept prairies? Here's a clue - a shot of a wheat field, is a shot of a wheat field. Not a portal to the ineffable. and here's a clue for Jeff - when next you decide to write a script, and get puzzled looks from those who read it, take it to heart. Next time, why don't you write something outside yourself, just for once - why? I'm gonna give you the gift of truth. If you were Buñuel, if you were Goddard (in his prime) or Eisenstein, or J.M.E.C. Cocteau, or Rimbaud, or even Patty Smith, if you had an interesting life, an original thought or were just a really fun guy, then maybe what comes out of your head, that is so clear to you, but which you just can't explain, might be worth looking at. But, you're not. Not even close. You don't have a point of view worth looking at or listening to. It is base, dull, unimaginative and worse, banal. You bore with your reluctance to really grapple with what's in front of you. You mince around when you should be tearing it up. You lack spine and guts and conviction. You are stubborn but, that's a poor substitute for having something important to say. Do all of Canada, and Winnipeg a big favour and stop making films.

When i stop and i think about it, this is the first movie i've ever watched that was explicitly and straightforwardly queer. i found it in youtube when i was about 15, and i will never forget the profound emotion and connection i've felt with it. not only it was about something i was feeling, but it also was such a mesmerizing experience. today, 6 years later, its power is still very strong.

the whole thing feels like a dream, a nightmare, to be precise. there is density and tension in the atmosphere, highlighted by a disturbingly slow (and purposefully unnatural) pace.

the cinematography is foggy and blurred, and the camera movements and editing are fluid and slow, giving the visuals an uneven, unrealistic and nostalgic feel. the sound design has an amateurish and experimental quality that suits the film very well too, with loud, opressive ambiences (constant clocks, crickets and insects) and a haunting noise-like music to go with it.

combine all of that, with beautiful and infinite praire landscapes, great performances from all the cast, influences of body horror, doppelganger horror and surrealism, and a strong nod to magical realism: what you get it's not only a mere lgbtq+ film, but a QUEER film that defies the logic of reality and fantasy, and very acurately portrays the queer childhood and the nightmare it can become. one of my favorites, all the way.

I hate pretentious movies that try so hard to be art that they forget to be entertaining. This movie falls into that category. I'm not really a fan of abstract surrealism at the best of times, but bleak self-loathing surrealism can just go take a jump in the lake! The trouble with symbolism is that if it needs a guide book to tell you what's going on (especially symbolism in movies where the viewer doesn't have the time to dissect every nuance), I think it fails. It just becomes a series of directorial in-jokes. I don't mind challenging film. I can stomach dark movies. But this simply failed to reward the effort.

Furthermore, none of the non-surreal relationships (Nicholas and Bobby, Nicholas and his mother, mother and boyfriend) were remotely credible, so my mind was constantly tussling with the disbelief about their relationships, long before the actual surreal stuff started happening.

This movie had the potential to be really worthwhile, with some mature performances from the young leads forging the way, but instead it disappeared right up its own self-indulgent rectum.

Read traymasters' review above, then save yourself the time of actually watching the movie. His review is far more meaningful and lucid than the actual movie!